Éditeur(s) : HAL CCSD Elsevier
Résumé : International audience
ISSN: 0003-4975

hal-01563338
http://hal.univ-brest.fr/hal-01563338
DOI : 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2016.03.093
PUBMED : 27262916

Résumé : This report includes a qualitative and descriptive approach of the oyster and mussel industries in the European Community. This report compares the structure of production, the marketsn the professional organisation, competition for the resource, legislation and support systemat the community levell. Technical and statistical datas are summarized to représent the structure of the industry, the trade flows and the main evolutions of the two industries in the EC. A summary of the county reports gives an overview of the present state of the industry in each country and suggest a first evaluation of constraints and prospects. [NOT CONTROLLDED OCR]
Ce rapport comprend une approche descriptive et qualitative du secteur conchylicole traditionnel (moules et huîtres) dans la Communauté Européenne. Il aborde les aspects production, marché, organisation, réglementation, système d'aide dans les différents pays par une analyse comparative des secteurs, complétée par une synthèse chiffrée des données techniques et statistiques. Une vision d'ensemble des flux et de l'évolution des deux filières dans la Communauté est ainsi présentée. Un résumé des rapports nationaux évalue l'organisation, les contraintes et les perspectives du secteur dans chacun des pays. [OCR NON CONTRÔLE]

Droits : 1993 Ifremer
http://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/1993/rapport-4176.pdf
http://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/1993/sup-4176.pdf
http://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/00000/4176/

Éditeur(s) : HAL CCSD Elsevier
Résumé : International audience
Aims: The aims of this study were to compare short-and long-term outcomes for clinical T2N0 oesophageal cancer with analysis of (i) primary surgery (S) versus neoadjuvant therapy plus surgery (NS), (ii) squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma subsets; and (iii) neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy.Methods: Data were collected from 30 European centres from 2000 to 2010. Among 2944 included patients, 355 patients (12.1%) had cT2N0 disease; 285 (S) and 70 (NS), were compared in terms of short-and long-term outcomes. Propensity score matching analyses were used to compensate for differences in baseline characteristics.Results: No significant differences between the groups were shown in terms of in hospital morbidity and mortality. Nodal disease was observed in 50% of S-group at the time of surgery, with 20% pN2/N3. Utilisation of neoadjuvant therapy was associated with significant tumour downstaging as reflected by increases in pT0, pN0 and pTNM stage 0 disease, this effect was further enhanced with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. After adjustment on propensity score and confounding factors, for all patients and subset analysis of squamous cell and adenocarcinoma, neoadjuvant therapy had no significant effect upon survival or recurrence (overall, loco-regional, distant or mixed) compared to surgery alone. There were no significant differences between neoadjuvant chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy in short-or long-term outcomes.Conclusion: The results of this study suggest that a surgery alone treatment approach should be recommended as the primary treatment approach for cT2N0 oesophageal cancer despite 50% of patients having nodal disease at the time of surgery.
ISSN: 0959-8049

hal-01666517
https://hal.univ-lorraine.fr/hal-01666517
DOI : 10.1016/j.ejca.2015.11.024

Éditeur(s) : HAL CCSD Landes Bioscience
Résumé : International audience
In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field.
Autophagy

hal-00735751
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00735751
PUBMED : 22966490